In a significant ruling impacting hundreds of pending income-tax reassessment disputes, the Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the validity of reopening notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs), amid nationwide controversy over the implementation of the Faceless Reassessment Scheme.
The petitions—filed by multiple assessees including Inder Dev Gupta, All India Kataria Educational Society, Sumanglam Sewa Avam Education Samiti, and others—contended that after the insertion of Section 151A and the introduction of the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) had jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices. They argued that all physical-jurisdiction officers were divested of such powers, rendering the impugned notices void.
The petitioners relied heavily on several judgments of the Bombay High Court, Telangana High Court, and Punjab & Haryana High Court, all of which had held that reassessment notices must mandatorily be issued by the FAO. They further cited the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Revenue’s SLP in Deepanjan Roy, claiming that the apex court had effectively affirmed the interpretation that JAOs lacked jurisdiction.
However, the Delhi High Court, speaking through Justice V. Kameswar Rao (with Justice Vinod Kumar concurring), firmly rejected this contention. The Bench reiterated that within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi, the court has consistently upheld the principle that both the JAO and FAO enjoy concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. This position was earlier settled in the landmark TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, which continues to hold the field.
The Court emphasised that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of an SLP “in limine”—without detailed reasons—does not amount to affirmation of the High Court’s reasoning, nor does it create any binding precedent under Article 141. It relied on authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including Fuljit Kaur, Kunhayammed, Khoday Distilleries, and Dhirendra Sundar Das, which clarify that such dismissals do not erode the effectiveness of existing High Court judgments.
The Bench noted that although the Supreme Court has issued notices and granted interim protection to the assessees in All India Kataria Educational Society and Yukti Export, no stay has been imposed on the Delhi High Court’s earlier rulings, including TKS Builders and P.C. Jeweller Ltd. Therefore, the Court held that it remains bound by its own precedents until the Supreme Court expressly decides otherwise.
Concluding that the petitioners’ arguments offered no new ground to revisit the settled legal position, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions along with the pending applications, clearing the way for the tax department to continue reassessment proceedings initiated by JAOs across Delhi.
The judgment marks a crucial reaffirmation of the Delhi High Court’s stance on the operation of the faceless reassessment framework and its coexistence with traditional jurisdictional powers, while the final word from the Supreme Court is still awaited.
Case Name: Inder Dev Gupta & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Delhi & Connected Matters
Date of Decision: 21 November 2025